E1328 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks July 25, 2012 

Unfortunately, this occurs far too frequently. 

Last fall, an investigation by the Boston Globe 

found that 48 percent of the seafood it sampled from grocery stores and restaurants in 

the Boston area was not the species that was 

advertised. Subsequent investigations in Los 

Angeles and Miami this year produced similar 

results. These shocking revelations of seafood 

fraud have exposed a severe shortcoming in 

the ability of our nation to ensure the integrity 

of seafood products offered for sale, especially 

the 85 percent of those products that come 

from abroad. 

In addition to problems with seafood fraud 

uncovered by these recent reports, the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported last year that we are doing a terrible 

job ensuring that seafood imported into this 

country is safe for people to consume. GAO 

found that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for ensuring 

seafood safety, inspects only 2 percent of seafood shipments, and that failure to coordinate 

with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s (NOAA) Seafood Inspection 

Service has led to hundreds of redundant inspections. This unnecessary duplication of effort is unacceptable, especially as difficult fiscal circumstances have squeezed the budgets 

of both agencies. 

The Safety And Fraud Enforcement for Seafood Act, or SAFE Seafood Act—which I am 

introducing today along with Mr. FRANK and 

Mr. KEATING of Massachusetts, Mr. JONES of 

North Carolina, and Mr. COURTNEY of Connecticut—addresses the seafood safety problem by ensuring that FDA and NOAA work together to maximize the frequency and effectiveness of seafood inspections, and to prevent unsafe seafood from entering the United 

States. In addition, it combats seafood fraud 

by requiring that information such as harvest 

location, production method, and species 

name of the seafood stays with that product 

from sea to sale. The SAFE Seafood Act accomplishes these goals by holding violators 

accountable with fines and import restrictions 

if they don’t play by the rules. 

American consumers have an expectation 

that the seafood they buy for their families is, 

in fact, the seafood that is advertised, and that 

it is safe for them to eat. Similarly, American 

fishermen, who comply with the most rigorous 

conservation and quality control standards 

anywhere in the world, should know they are 

competing on a level playing field, and not 

being undercut by an inferior foreign product. 

Fraudulent and unsafe seafood takes money 

from consumers and puts their health at risk. 

The SAFE Seafood Act is an important step 

toward reducing seafood fraud and increasing 

seafood safety. We owe it to American families and fishermen to address these problems 

immediately. 

f 

PUBLIC BROADCASTING FUNDING 

HON. DON YOUNG OF ALASKA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I understand that these are tough budget times 

and we have to make a lot of cuts if we’re 

going to balance the budget. However, I also 

believe that we have to make every possible 

effort to retain adequate levels of funding for 

public broadcasting. 

This March, I signed letters to two Appropriations Subcommittees in an attempt to protect funding for public broadcasting. For decades, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 

(CPB) has aired educational programs and 

helped our children to learn to read, to understand basic math, and to engage in the study 

of science. It would be a shame to deny the 

next generation beneficial programs like Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, and Bill Nye the 

Science Guy because of budget problems. 

Public broadcasting is more than education 

though. Even as newspapers are sputtering, 

trying to compete with the internet, 38 million 

people still listen to National Public Radio 

(NPR) every week. In Alaska, many communities rely on public broadcasting. The majority 

of our state can be described as remote and 

many Alaskans get their news exclusively from 

a single radio or television station. Fourteen 

stations, nearly half of those in Alaska, are 

critically dependent on federal funding and 

would likely close their doors if they lost that 

money. This would effectively strand numerous Alaskan communities, leaving them cut off 

from any form of news or even emergency 

communications. 

I support the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, and the Public 

Telecommunications Facilities Program. Funding these programs is not just good for the 

country, it is vital. 

f 

THE TRUE COST OF COAL ACT OF 

2012 

HON. JIM McDERMOTT OF WASHINGTON

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today 

to introduce the True Cost of Coal Act of 2012 

that protects the American taxpayer from bearing the costs of transporting coal for private 

companies to sell. If you were to listen to the 

coal companies, you would hear them decry 

the decline in domestic coal consumption. And 

while it is true that our domestic appetite for 

coal is waning, much of the rest of the world 

is still hungry for it. 

U.S. coal producers and suppliers are considering the construction of up to 9 coal export 

terminals in Washington and Oregon. These 

terminals will have a combined annual export 

capacity of 170 million tons of coal. To put this 

in perspective, the U.S. exported just 26 million tons of coal in 2011. This sharp increase 

in coal exports will be transported primarily 

through Oregon and my home State of Washington. Without question, this staggering increase will have serious implications on the 

Northwest’s environment, safety, commerce, 

and public health. 

But what does it take to ship 170 million 

tons of coal through the Pacific Northwest annually? We’re talking about a 1.5 mile long 

train packed with coal travelling thousands of 

times a year next to pristine waterfronts and 

through cities along the Puget Sound—each 

train spewing up to 500 pounds of toxic coal 

dust into the environment while increasing traffic on already congested rail tracks. These 

trains will run straight through the heart of my 

district, the city of Seattle, wreaking havoc on 

people’s health, the environment, commerce 

and shipping, and traffic. All of these costs will 

be endured for the sake of transporting coal 

that we get no benefit from. 

And who will pay for this added cost? Without legislation like this, the taxpayers will pay 

the costs of mitigating the negative impacts of 

coal. As traffic increases, and public health 

risks are exacerbated, coal companies will 

continue to reap the profits of cheap coal, 

mined from public lands, and remain largely 

free from responsibility for any of the negative 

impacts. This means that States and local 

governments will need to raise taxes to pay 

for the additional crossings, the environmental 

cleanup, and increased health costs. It is time 

we opened our eyes to the true cost of coal. 

This legislation would impose a 10 dollar 

per ton excise tax on all extracted coal. This 

money will go to mitigating the negative impacts of coal transportation, and ensure the 

true cost of coal is paid for by the responsible 

parties, and not the taxpayers. The money is 

allocated to the affected States, who are in the 

best position to determine how best to use 

their funds. 

Make no mistake, these coal exports are not 

about jobs, they are about profits. The U.S. 

Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates 

that it costs about $20 per ton to ship coal 

mined from the Powder River Basin to the Pacific Northwest. The EIA also has data that 

shows the average price per ton of coal exports is $148 per ton. I cannot emphasize 

enough that none of the profits will go to helping the affected communities. 

It’s time we shine a light on the true cost of 

coal and protect the American taxpayer from 

the negative impacts of transporting coal 

through our States. I have dedicated my career to keeping Washington and the Northwest 

a place where the environment, public health 

and efficient transportation do not get trumped 

by narrow interests. In 1980, I led the successful ‘‘Don’t Waste Washington’’ initiative, to 

keep Washington from becoming the country’s 

nuclear waste dumping ground, and 30 years 

later I remain just as committed to keeping it 

that way. 

f 

IN REMEMBRANCE OF WILLIAM A. 

SILVERMAN 

HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH OF OHIO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 

remembrance of publicist, William A. Silverman. 

Born in Toledo, Ohio, Bill was the son of an 

editor at the Cleveland News. Upon graduating from Centre College of Kentucky and 

the University of Madrid, he wrote for the 

Army’s Stars and Stripes publication during 

the Korean War. He also spent five years covering the police beat, and worked for several 

different public relations firms before opening 

his own firm, Silverman and Co. 

In the 1960s, Bill worked on the mayoral 

campaigns of Ralph Perk and Seth Taft; his 

work on Taft’s campaign earned him a public 

relations position with Mayor Stokes and a 

grant from the nonprofit Greater Cleveland Associated Foundation. Soon after beginning 

work with Stokes, Silverman opened the Silverman and Co. public relations firm in downtown Cleveland, OH. Together with Stokes, he 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REMARKS